2 ms·

We already have a kind of congestion pricing, in some sense. If you plan a trip during peak hours, it costs you more time. It’s pretty typical, then, to plan le

We already have a kind of congestion pricing, in some sense. If you plan a trip during peak hours, it costs you more time. It’s pretty typical, then, to plan leisure trips into or out of the city based around when traffic will be light. It’s just that this cost in time isn’t distributed nearly as ideally as it could be. It costs an individual the same amount whether they take a bus or a car with four people or four cars with one person each. If we tax per-vehicle instead, that pushes people not only to shape their travel times more ideally, but to also use more efficient forms of transportation. So long as this is used as a means to shape travel to be more efficient and not just as a way to gobble up revenue, it might be alright. I think toll bridges/roads are mostly this way, where they’re free in the dead of night when few are on the roads, so I’m hopeful.

clairity 8y ago
> "We already have a kind of congestion pricing, in some sense. If you plan a trip during peak hours, it costs you more time." this is an underappreciated point, as it underlies the popularity of congestion pricing among wealthier folks, whatever their politics (left-leaners ostensibly would otherwise support more egalitarian/progressive policies). currently everyone pays with their time, whether rich or poor. you can't buy your way out of the problem just for yourself. irksomely, money is of no advantage. but with congestion pricing, you could, and that's really appealing to wealthy folks. i'm not arguing against congestion pricing, just noting a less-visible motivation. a progressive pricing scheme (pay more if you have higher income/net worth), for example, would still reduce congestion while providing more egalitarian access.